I believe he is something of an attention seeker. He is retiring because he doesn't believe in infection control according to another story.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
He may be an attention seeker but he's only repeating what many people have said about bike helmets since the dawn of helmets.
Posted 10 years ago # -
A new TRL Report PPR697 on helmets looks set to be followed by a ban on children cycling without helmets in Jersey.
The TRL report looks better than some of the nonsense from the more extreme pro-helmet/anti-cycling without helmet lobby, but perhaps still has serious faults?Posted 10 years ago # -
At a glance, and going in looking for something to disagree with, two comments grabbed my attention.
When considering the situations in which helmets will be most effective it should be
noted that these tend to be the types of collision which are most common among cyclists
(non-vehicle collisions such as falls).Really? More cyclists fall off bikes than are knocked off? Is there a statistic for this, and does it include mountain biking and drink cycling?
It should also be noted that most studies focus on
the prevention of head injuries; there may be benefits associated with reducing the
severity of an injury, e.g. from severe to moderate, that are not accounted for in these
studies.I feel studies should look at the reduction of head injuries from fatal to not fatal. I can't imagine a helmet in most situations reducing head injuries from fatal to non-existent, ergo most of the studies they considered only look at the reduction of non-fatal head injuries.
Posted 10 years ago # -
(non-vehicle collisions such as falls)
Turns out there is a statistic for this. From the Netherlands, you know, where cars are careful around cyclists and there's a ton of infrastructure.
Posted 10 years ago # -
(non-vehicle collisions such as falls)
I don't have stats other than my own experiences and those of my family. Dozens of falls without vehicles hitting us, zero (touch wood!) from vehicles hitting us. I'd be concerned if anyone had more falls from being hit by vehicles, I have to say. But if that is the case, what stats do others have?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I fall off constantly as an embarrassingly high number of forum member can attest to. Out of all of those times I have hit my head once (wasn't wearing a helmet - this was about 100 years ago) and been hit by a motorist once (also in front of a forum member).
Posted 10 years ago # -
A month ago, my daughter received a scolding from a primary teaching assistant* for not wearing a helmet on the school run - "it is council policy".
When I challenged this, I was emailed a load of bumpf but no policy document. I had to arrange a meeting with the head to get the statement retracted. However it was stated that school biking activities (Bikeability) would require helmet-wearing for participation.
*This particular person is the Bikeability leader and has form on this, having previously driven my son to tears for not wearing a helmet, and he has not cycled to school since then.
The Jersey proposal is an interesting development- this island has a quota on car ownership and a low speed limit.Posted 10 years ago # -
It seems, just having read the Executive Summary, that it is fundamentally biased in terms of what it considers appropriate to consider. So, the effectiveness of helmets in a limited range of circumstances is appropriate but the risk of being in those circumstances appears not to be. I'm guessing that the client had a particular view that it would like evidence to support.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I'm guessing that the client had a particular view that it would like evidence to support."
What's the technical term for 'fix'?
Posted 10 years ago # -
What you do is write the terms of reference in such a way that the contractor can do their job in a thoroughly objective way but still get you the answer you want. For instance, in this case, it reads like the TOR have defined the scope of the study as being to look at literature on the effectiveness of helmets in avoiding or mitigating the effects of head injuries. That immediately confines the analysis to a specific set of circumstances and excludes the effects of compulsion on cycling participation and any analysis of risk compensation. It means there's no need to consider the combined risk of getting into an collision and being injured. It doesn't need TRL to be biased.
But I haven't read the report. It would be interesting to see their inclusion and exclusion criteria for the literature and the justification for some of the conclusions in the summary.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Now being touted by quangos: @Road_Safety_GB · 9h
Compulsory helmet wearing will prevent injuries to cyclists: TRL http://dlvr.it/6PcLT5Posted 10 years ago # -
I think the RSGB website story mentioned by le-soigneur is based on the TRL press release rather than the actual TRL Report. And the TRL's press department claim that seems to ignore the paragraph on p.40 before the summary:
"On balance, given the voluntary increases in cycle helmet wearing rates in recent years for under 16s, it is reasonable to assume that compulsory cycle helmet wearing in Jersey, given all the factors mentioned above will at worst have a neutral effect on cycling participation and injury prevention. However, it is more likely to have a positive influence on reducing causalities (sic) and head injury severity, although there is insufficient data to quantify this at this time."Posted 10 years ago # -
Relatively new helmet tech, but it's also interesting to see the testing methods.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Nice one, cheers for finding that.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Intel boffins cook up gyro-magneto-'puter bike helmet
I might not save your life in the event of a crash but hey at least it will tell your nearest and dearest where to find you.
I'll not be updating my wishlist just yet.Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
I can't remember which of cycling's Militant Tendency was posting about how cycling in Berlin wasn't at all as brilliant as suggested by other petit bourgeoise blogs but just looking at it (I wasn't cycling) it seemed to me that you could judge it by (a) the extent to which people were dressed for cycling (no one) (b) the sex split (I refuse to call it gender) (if anything more women than men) (c) the number of older people (plenty) (d) the ratio of helmets to bare heads (10:1 I'd say).
Taken together, for all its faults (compared to the Dutch gold standard) Berlin seems safe. Which tells me we're in danger of letting the best be the enemy of the good.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@insto Do you mean 10 bare heads to 1 helmet?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The United States where helmets are more common and Australia where they are mandated have more deaths per cyclist worse safety, than Netherlands or Germany. The more people cycle and better infrastructure the safer is the theory. Drivers will get more used to cyclists, the chicken and egg. The thinking being that if people have to wear helmets fewer people will cycle, so no pressure to build infrastructure, and drivers don’t know how to drive around cyclists may be.
From an individual point a helmet would always be safer compared to none all things being equal in respect to drivers and cycle infrastructure.
But things would not be equal in respect to drivers and cycle infrastructure if pressured to wear helmets then less cyclists the few that continue to cycle may be less safe statistically if helmets were mandated.
In the Netherlands it may be safer statistically to ride with no helmet than it is with a helmet in the United States (although would be difficult to compare like with like different types of cycling). But it would still be safer to wear a helmet in the Netherlands than not wear a helmet.
Would also depend on the type of cycling, if someone was going to the shops along cycle path say the Meadows for half a mile at 8 miles an hour on a bright sunny say, then a helmet would not be as important as if someone was cycling 20 miles an hour through rush hour traffic past say Wester hails in on 40 mph street on a wet day.
If cycling as quicker walk to walking, or if cycling as an alternative to a car or bus journey part of the better safety figures for Netherlands as well as the infrastructure and better driving from people being familiar with cycling and better cycling also, the worse statics may be caused by the type of people who cycle.
Because of poor cycle infrastructure/ culture differences in parts of United States or UK, there is less older people and women cycling.
So the younger male bigger percentage of cyclist on the road than in countries everyone cycles. Also in the united states a much higher percentage of cycle journeys are recreational compared to the Netherlands where utility.
They may be a correlation that the higher the utility to recreational, the safer, although can imagine this in the west, if took India and places where poor cycle for utility and compared to recreational cycling in the west may be not so.
Not sure there can be a hard and fast rule on helmets would depend on the context.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Yes, sorry, 10 bare heads for every 1 helmeted. And a really nice mix of pavement and road cycling, with people hopping on and off the pavement. No obvious signage or demarcation of pavement / cycle path where (wide) pavements were shared. And yet I didn't see anything that looked like conflict.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I didn't see anything that looked like conflict
Bike/ped conflict in Berlin tends to be where tourists stray onto the bike lanes without realising it.
The lane demarcation is often very subtle, as is the street lighting.
Fortunately everyone has a bell and is happy to ring it.
I can't remember which of cycling's Militant Tendency was posting about how cycling in Berlin wasn't at all as brilliant
http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/berlin-does-not-have-a-cycle-network/
Posted 10 years ago # -
Bike/ped conflict in Berlin tends to be where tourists stray onto the bike lanes without realising it.
Did that.
Thanks Bax. That's the one.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust is to be renamed as Cycle-Smart, and expand its remit to make cycling "safer" for children.
Angie Lee's controversial cycle helmet charity helmet the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust is to be rebranded as Cycle-Smart. If the new name sounds familiar that's because there are a number of Cycle Smart organisations already in existence as well as a Disney-sponsored campaign owned by the Department for Transport. The new name will be unveiled by comedian Hugh Dennis tomorrow night at BHIT's annual gala dinner in its home town of Reading.
"
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bhit-rebrands-with-name-that-clashes-with-others/017097
Posted 10 years ago # -
Could this be that Angie Lee is eventually conceding that helmets are not the panacea that BeHit put as the cornerstone of their campaigning?
Interesting that from observations just riding around many cities, at least 50%, if not more of the helmet wearing brigade have the straps loose, or even undone, or wear the helmet perched atop a stack of balaclava' cotton cap, or woolly hat, which renders the things potentially more dangerous and generally less effective.
Mk 1 cranium with energy absorbing flesh & hair and shock absorbing fused plate structure has delivered pretty well for a few million years of running into things and falling down when running. Combine this with the instinctive relax & roll action - with foetal tuck-in that places the head in the centre of a protected bundle in a high speed impact should provide a robust system using 'as-supplied' equipment.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Tulyar - you forgot to mention the people who wear them on the back of their head rather than the front (or, more commonly, who let their children do the same).
<high horse>It also says in the manuals that come with cycle helmets that you shouldn't let children wear them for anything else (for example while playing on the climbing frame) because there's a risk they'll injure themselves, but you see lots of children wearing them for everything at the park. If you're going to put a piece of PPE on your child or yourself, you do have some responsibility to read the instructions that come with it and do everything they say. If you don't, how can you expect it to protect you in the way it's designed to? </high horse><high horse>It's a bit like on TV DIY programmes when people are doing dusty stuff. They wear a disposable dust mask with two straps and have one of the straps hanging down unused at the front. If PPE is worth wearing, it's worth wearing properly. Grrr.</high horse>
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
